Singleton v. Mauney et al
Filing
36
ORDER re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by D Filmore, F Ogunsile, L Buttrey, Florence Mauney, Michael Matthews. Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment [Entry #28]. As such, it appears to the court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this case and to file a response to Defendants motion for summary judgment by March 19, 2014. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 3/5/2014. (abuc) Modified on 3/5/2014 (abuc, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Kendrick L.J. Singleton,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Florence Mauney, Associate Warden of
Security; Michael Matthews, Regional
Director of Inmate Classification;
D. Filmore, Perry Correctional Inst.
Classification Caseworker; L. Buttrey,
Perry Correctional Inst. Classification
Caseworker; and F. Ogunsile Perry
Correctional Inst. Classification
Caseworker,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C/A No.: 1:13-2104-JMC-SVH
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action alleging
violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment on December 17, 2013. [Entry #28]. As Plaintiff is
proceeding pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975) on December 18, 2013, advising him of the importance of the motion
for summary judgment and of the need for him to file an adequate response. [Entry #29].
Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, Defendants’
motion may be granted.
Notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s
Roseboro order, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion. As such, it appears to the
1
court that he does not oppose the motion and wishes to abandon this action. Based on the
foregoing, Plaintiff is directed to advise the court whether he wishes to continue with this
case and to file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment by March 19,
2014. Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be
recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams,
588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 5, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?